Oooh, now you're trying to play the victim. Sorry, that stopped working ages ago.:shrug: About as petty as character assassination and misrepresentation.
Complexity of an issue does not. Needlessly throwing in irrelevant information does. In fact, it is borderline intellectual dishonesty...Oh, I agree that complexity does sometimes appear as obfuscation. It shouldn't, but it does.
So then you claim there is not a sexual part to rape? I would like to see some evidence of this.False dilemma. I never said "all". But now you're arguing "most". Have any evidence for this? I have to tell you, it does run a bit counter-current to your posse's concepts... and they do wield a bit more power than little old me. Food for thought.
Evidence for their being a sexual component to rape is pretty simple... sex occurs quite often in rape. Or is sex not sexual?
Points? I didn't realize I was on "Whose Line Is It Anyway"Kitta, again, if you don't get the proposition, ask or don't comment. Don't try to make it into something it's not just to score points.
I apologize for my typographic error - Indeed, it is Homo sapiens. I am curious though - how do you figure my argument is a false dichotomy? You yourself said:It's written Homo sapiens, without referring to the subspecies. Let's discuss: does "minor effect" translate to "no relevance" or "absolute effect"? You're arguing the latter about my point as a kind of false dichotomy. Or: "All about biology" and "no relevance" are taking up very different positions on importance. The latter is closer, mathematically.
In. The. Distant. Evolutionary. Past. At. The. Dawn. Of. Mankind. Or. In. Related. Species. Not. Now.
Sounds like a retraction and backpedaling...
Oh, you are still confused on my stance on rape? Well, I'm sorry, but I can't make it much more clear thanDoesn't much explain your concluding thoughts earlier.
You haven't attracted a posse in this thread so much as the usual members of the forum who find any reason at all the complain about the leadership on the forums... not surprising really.How strange. I seem to have attracted a 'posse' anyway. (Maybe we're are all the crazy ones, eh amigo?)
I would be curious to peruse your PM history... bet there is some juicy collaboration going on there, but that isn't my call to make.
Will it be? Will it really? Or will we be back on this again an hour later? "Geoff, why do you consider all rape biological?" "I don't." "Geoff, why do you consider all rape biological?" Etc. Excuse me if I don't write this sucker down in my Dream Diary.
That depends - do you intend to posit your argument using sources that try to make such claims?
And speaking of "rape apologist"... or was it "advocate"? I forget...
So, in concert with your above statement, the victim is sometimes indeed "asking for it" to happen. Keeping in mind you're referring to rape here, not sex. Your example afterwards then confounds the two. And I'm the "rape apologist/advocate/whatever". Right.
I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and twisting of statement to try and allude that I am somehow saying rape is okay in any situation.
No, once again - my point was that sometimes the person we think is the "victim" in a supposed "rape" is, in fact, the one using the supposed rapist. Much as any normal person could comprehend from the explanation given.
Indeed, I have many talents - sniffing out bullshit is just one of many, and it makes poor lonely minstrels like yourself very angry when they can no longer spout their venom without being called out on it.Kitta, do you have any other unusual talents, like backpedaling or juggling? Useful in a circus, I hear.